steve rice wrote: > --- On Sat, 6/13/09, Kjell Rehnstr�m <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> steve rice skrev: >>> The new Vp doesn't differ that much from the old, and >> some of the innovations could be incorporated in the original >> without harm. But somehow the new version has lost the charm >> of the original, and I should think those wishing to >> memorialize Vp would prefer the original. >>> ��� >> I'm working through the de Jong's� Volap�k version in the >> course in ten lessons. I have glanced a little at the >> original volap�k, but have very nebulous impressions about >> it. de Jong's language is fascinating. If it can act as an >> auxlang in our time, is something I doubt, but it is indeed >> fascinating. >> > I'll concede "fascinating," but for me the r-avoidance, the > so-called sexism, the quasi-Hebrew handling of numbers, and so > on are part of the charm of the original. But I consider it > essentially an artlang, and de Jong's version as well, and the > original is simply more "arty." I don't find it "arty" so much as consistent, just to the extent that its forms are not as familiar to our Western European languages. I've always thought Volapük's biggest fault was having all those front vowels instead of just sticking to a more familiar five-vowel system like E-o has. I'm sure this was Schleyer's L1 bias. Sasxsek was influenced quite a bit by features I found in other auxlangs. Volapük and had a big influence on the morphology, along with Vorlin. Somewhat coincidentally I ultimately made reforms very similar to de Jong's by allowing stop+glide combinations. In the case of Sasxsek though it was the other way around with the rhotic. I had only /r/, which was intended to be like Japanese, but later added /l/ and shifted the rhotic to one familiar to GA English. The rationale behind the additional phonemes and more lax phonotactics is that it makes a lot of the forms more recognizable.